The sworn testimony of John Martin McCormick, United Airlines Corporate Security's lead investigator, raises substantial concerns regarding the reliability, completeness, and impartiality of the investigation that ultimately contributed to my termination.

This is not merely a disagreement with Mr. McCormick's conclusions. His own testimony establishes that critical evidence was accepted without verification, potentially exculpatory evidence was not pursued, the complainant's credibility was not meaningfully tested, and I was never interviewed before the investigation was treated as sufficiently complete to reach a conclusion against me.

1. McCormick never authenticated the alleged text messages

The alleged text messages were central to the accusations against me. Yet Mr. McCormick testified unequivocally that he did nothing to verify their authenticity.

When asked what he did to determine whether the messages were actually sent by me, he testified that he did not believe he needed to do anything because he relied upon his conversations with Katherine Lense and other material she provided. When asked directly whether he actually performed any authentication, he answered:

“No.”

He further acknowledged that he did not ask Ms. Lense what telephone number was associated with the “Derek B” contact appearing on the messages. He also testified that he did not examine Ms. Lense's phone concerning those messages.
This is particularly significant because the identity of the sender was not a minor factual issue—it was fundamental to the allegations.

The investigator did not independently establish that the messages originated from my telephone number, my device, or my account. Instead, the attribution was accepted largely because Ms. Lense said they came from me.

That distinction is critical.

2. McCormick did not determine when several of the messages were actually sent

Mr. McCormick also admitted that he did not independently establish the dates of the alleged communications.

When asked about a message marked “October 11,” he acknowledged that he did not determine the year. His explanation was that he did not believe the year needed to be determined because the investigation would proceed regardless.

He further acknowledged that he did not know the exact dates of other messages identified only by terms such as “Thursday,” “Sunday,” and “Yesterday.”

That creates a serious evidentiary problem. If the investigation was intended to determine whether specific communications occurred, when they occurred, and whether I was responsible for them, the investigator should have established those facts rather than assuming the chronology.

3. McCormick never obtained the underlying phone records

Mr. McCormick testified that he never requested a text-message log from Ms. Lense. He simply accepted the screenshots she provided as the messages believed to be associated with the allegations.

He also did not request a call log. He did not request additional voicemails. He testified that Ms. Lense told him the additional voicemails were not relevant, and he accepted that representation.

This is especially important because the investigation involved allegations concerning communications between two people who had an existing history of communications.

Rather than obtain the underlying records that could have confirmed or contradicted the screenshots, the investigation relied upon selected materials supplied by the complainant.

4. The investigator did not interview the accused employee

Mr. McCormick acknowledged that he never interviewed me.

More importantly, his testimony establishes that this was highly unusual compared with his normal investigative practice.

McCormick testified that, in harassment and discrimination investigations, he would normally interview the complainant, potential witnesses, and, if possible, the respondent. He could recall very few situations in which the subject of a complaint was not interviewed and acknowledged that this case was one of those unusual instances.

The problem is not simply that I was not interviewed.

The problem is that the investigator knew that the normal investigative process included interviewing the accused employee, yet the investigation proceeded without obtaining my testimony.

Mr. McCormick was specifically asked whether he believed he could obtain additional information from me that might have been helpful to the investigation.

His answer ultimately relied upon what he characterized as my “admission,” statement, and voicemail. He testified that he believed the allegations had already been substantiated and therefore did not need to interview me.

That reasoning is circular.

The investigator effectively concluded that my interview was unnecessary because he had already concluded that the allegations were true. Yet the purpose of interviewing the respondent is precisely to determine whether the evidence has been misunderstood, disputed, contradicted, or explained by information unavailable from the complainant.

5. McCormick did not meaningfully investigate Ms. Lense's credibility

McCormick testified that credibility is an important consideration in Corporate Security investigations.

Yet his own testimony demonstrates that he declined to investigate circumstances that could bear directly upon Ms. Lense's credibility and the context of the alleged communications.

For example, he acknowledged that Ms. Lense characterized her relationship with me as a casual friendship, but he did not ask her why she continued that relationship after allegedly receiving what she characterized as hateful or harassing messages from me. He expressly stated that he considered that information irrelevant.

That decision deserves particular scrutiny.

If the allegation was that I had engaged in serious harassment beginning in October 2020, the nature and continuation of the parties' communications afterward could potentially provide important context concerning the credibility, interpretation, and chronology of the allegations.

Instead, the investigator decided in advance that the relationship was irrelevant.

6. McCormick's own notes documented that Ms. Lense was concerned about protecting her job

There is another significant point in the testimony.

McCormick acknowledged that his notes reflected Ms. Lense's concern about “false allegations” and that she was worried about protecting herself because she believed allegations could affect her employment.

He specifically explained his notation “Kat - protect yourself?” as referring to her concern about her job and her desire to “protect herself.”

That does not, by itself, establish that Ms. Lense fabricated anything.

However, it was plainly a circumstance that could have warranted additional credibility investigation—particularly because the complaint itself involved competing allegations between two employees whose employment could potentially be affected.

Instead of fully exploring that issue, McCormick accepted her explanation and proceeded.

7. Potentially relevant evidence was excluded without adequate investigation

McCormick testified that he did not request additional voicemails from Ms. Lense because she told him they were not relevant.

He also did not request the police report she referenced.

The problem is that an investigator cannot meaningfully determine whether evidence is relevant if he does not first obtain and examine it.

The investigation therefore appears to have operated on a process of accepting the complainant's characterization of evidence rather than independently evaluating the evidence itself.

8. McCormick's investigation was based substantially upon information supplied by one side

The pattern emerging from the testimony is significant.

FA Lense supplied screenshots and other materials.

McCormick did not independently authenticate the screenshots.

He did not obtain the phone number associated with “Derek B.”

He did not examine FA Lense phone.

He did not obtain her text-message logs.

He did not obtain her call logs.

He did not obtain additional voicemails.

He did not establish the dates of several communications.

He did not interview FA Blockhus.

He did not investigate why the alleged victim continued a friendship with me after the alleged harassment.

And he relied upon FA Lense's characterization of certain evidence as irrelevant.

These are not isolated omissions. Taken together, they demonstrate a substantial failure to independently test the evidence upon which the investigation relied.

9. McCormick's own description of a normal investigation highlights the deficiency

Perhaps the most important evidence comes from McCormick's description of what a normal investigation should look like.

He testified that a normal investigation would involve the complainant, potential witnesses, and, when possible, the respondent.

He also testified that his expected February 8 investigation of me would have involved providing me with the investigative materials and conducting a normal investigation based upon the evidence, statements, and respondent interview.

That normal process never occurred.

Instead, the investigation was treated as sufficiently complete without my participation.

10. The central problem: conclusion preceded investigation

The most troubling aspect of McCormick's testimony is the apparent sequence of events.

Rather than:

Evidence → authentication → witness interviews → respondent interview → credibility assessment → findings

the investigation appears to have operated more like:

Complaint → complainant's evidence → assumption that evidence was authentic → assumption regarding attribution → no respondent interview → conclusion

McCormick's testimony that he did not need to authenticate the messages because he already believed they were mine is particularly revealing.

An investigation cannot reliably establish the truth of an allegation by assuming the critical evidence supporting that allegation is authentic.

Conclusion

The AFA must examine the investigator's own sworn testimony.

That testimony establishes that the evidence used against FA Blockhus was not independently authenticated; the dates of significant communications were not established; underlying phone and communication records were not obtained; additional voicemails were not pursued; potentially relevant contextual evidence was dismissed; Ms. Lense's credibility was not subjected to the level of scrutiny the circumstances warranted; and, most importantly, I was never interviewed before the investigation was treated as sufficient to reach an adverse conclusion.

The issue is therefore not merely whether McCormick reached the wrong conclusion.

The more fundamental question is whether he had conducted a sufficiently complete and reliable investigation to justify the conclusion he reached in the first place.

His sworn testimony provides substantial grounds for answering that question in the negative.

When this testimony is considered together with the disputed authenticity of the screenshots, the absence of independent phone records, the unresolved chronology, the failure to interview me, the evidence concerning the parties' continued communications, and the contractual requirement that I be afforded an opportunity to respond, there is more than sufficient reason for AFA to conduct a renewed and independent review of the termination and the underlying grievance.

At minimum, this evidence establishes that the original investigation cannot reasonably be treated as an unquestionable factual foundation for the termination. The investigation itself contains unresolved evidentiary and procedural deficiencies that warrant further review.